"If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment"? Donald Trump

[pknopp]

Being a hypocrite isnt illegal. If it were half the people on this message board would be posting from jail.

I'm not sure anyone said it was illegal. Just for Trump (and yes many other politicians also) just par for the course.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The allegation is so weak it just says that Biden did something illegal. You don't even know what he did that was illegal.

And you get angry when I point this out.

Weak in your opinion. Not mine, big guy. Pay for play and I think he is guilty as hell. Whether or not that plays out we will see. Plausible deniability.

 

[Rigby5]

Irrelevant to the law.

The allegation is so weak you can't even say what law was broken or how. It's pure speculation.

No one but a liar would claim that having a son accept kickbacks was at all legal.
The law is clear.
Obviously the Bidens are guilty over the Ukraine giving Hunter millions from the US aid Joe approved for the Ukraine and getting Shokin fired.

26 CFR § 1.162-18 - Illegal bribes and kickbacks.

www.law.cornell.edu

{...
§ 1.162-18 Illegal bribes and kickbacks.
(a) Illegal payments to government officials or employees -

(1) In general. No deduction shall be allowed under section 162(a) for any amount paid or incurred, directly or indirectly, to an official or employee of any government, or of any agency or other instrumentality of any government, if -

(i) In the case of a payment made to an official or employee of a government other than a foreign government described in subparagraph (3) (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph, the payment constitutes an illegal bribe or kickback, or

(ii) In the case of a payment made to an official or employee of a foreign government described in subparagraph (3) (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph, the making of the payment would be unlawful under the laws of the United States (if such laws were applicable to the payment and to the official or employee at the time the expenses were paid or incurred).

No deduction shall be allowed for an accrued expense if the eventual payment thereof would fall within the prohibition of this section. The place where the expenses are paid or incurred is immaterial. For purposes of subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, lawfulness, or unlawfulness of the payment under the laws of the foreign country is immaterial.
(2) Indirect payment. For purposes of this paragraph, an indirect payment to an individual shall include any payment which inures to his benefit or promotes his interests, regardless of the medium in which the payment is made and regardless of the identity of the immediate recipient or payor. Thus, for example, payment made to an agent, relative, or independent contractor of an official or employee, or even directly into the general treasury of a foreign country of which the beneficiary is an official or employee, may be treated as an indirect payment to the official or employee, if in fact such payment inures or will inure to his benefit or promotes or will promote his financial or other interests. A payment made by an agent or independent contractor of the taxpayer which benefits the taxpayer shall be treated as an indirect payment by the taxpayer to the official or employee.

(3) Official or employee of a government. Any individual officially connected with -

(i) The Government of the United States, a State, a territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

(ii) The government of a foreign country, or

(iii) A political subdivision of, or a corporation or other entity serving as an agency or instrumentality of, any of the above,

in whatever capacity, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, and whether or not serving for compensation, shall be included within the term “official or employee of a government”, regardless of the place of residence or post of duty of such individual. An independent contractor would not ordinarily be considered to be an official or employee. For purposes of section 162(c) and this paragraph, the term “foreign country” shall include any foreign nation, whether or not such nation has been accorded diplomatic recognition by the United States. Individuals who purport to act on behalf of or as the government of a foreign nation, or an agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be treated under this section as officials or employees of a foreign government, whether or not such individuals in fact control such foreign nation, agency, or instrumentality, and whether or not such individuals are accorded diplomatic recognition. Accordingly, a group in rebellion against an established government shall be treated as officials or employees of a foreign government, as shall officials or employees of the government against which the group is in rebellion.
(4) Laws of the United States. The term “laws of the United States”, to which reference is made in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, shall be deemed to include only Federal statutes, including State laws which are assimilated into Federal law by Federal statute, and legislative and interpretative regulations thereunder. The term shall also be limited to statutes which prohibit some act or acts, for the violation of which there is a civil or criminal penalty.

(5) Burden of proof. In any proceeding involving the issue of whether, for purposes of section 162(c)(1), a payment made to a government official or employee constitutes an illegal bribe or kickback (or would be unlawful under the laws of the United States) the burden of proof in respect of such issue shall be upon the Commissioner to the same extent as he bears the burden of proof in civil fraud cases under section 7454 (i.e., he must prove the illegality of the payment by clear and convincing evidence).

(6) Example. The application of this paragraph may be illustrated by the following example:

Example.
X Corp. is in the business of selling hospital equipment in State Y. During 1970, X Corp. employed A who at the time was employed full time by State Y as Superintendent of Hospitals. The purpose of A's employment by X Corp. was to procure for it an improper advantage over other concerns in the making of sales to hospitals in respect of which A, as Superintendent, had authority. X Corp. paid A $5,000 during 1970. The making of this payment was illegal under the laws of State Y. Under section 162(c)(1), X Corp. is precluded from deducting as a trade or business expense the $5,000 paid to A.
...}

 

[colfax_m]

Weak in your opinion. Not mine, big guy. Pay for play and I think he is guilty as hell. Whether or not that plays out we will see. Plausible deniability.

You don't even know what he's guilty of doing.

 

[colfax_m]

Liar.
No one but a liar would claim that having a son accept kickbacks was at all legal.
The law is clear.

26 CFR § 1.162-18 - Illegal bribes and kickbacks.

www.law.cornell.edu

{...
§ 1.162-18 Illegal bribes and kickbacks.
(a) Illegal payments to government officials or employees -

(1) In general. No deduction shall be allowed under section 162(a) for any amount paid or incurred, directly or indirectly, to an official or employee of any government, or of any agency or other instrumentality of any government, if -

(i) In the case of a payment made to an official or employee of a government other than a foreign government described in subparagraph (3) (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph, the payment constitutes an illegal bribe or kickback, or

(ii) In the case of a payment made to an official or employee of a foreign government described in subparagraph (3) (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph, the making of the payment would be unlawful under the laws of the United States (if such laws were applicable to the payment and to the official or employee at the time the expenses were paid or incurred).

No deduction shall be allowed for an accrued expense if the eventual payment thereof would fall within the prohibition of this section. The place where the expenses are paid or incurred is immaterial. For purposes of subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, lawfulness, or unlawfulness of the payment under the laws of the foreign country is immaterial.
(2) Indirect payment. For purposes of this paragraph, an indirect payment to an individual shall include any payment which inures to his benefit or promotes his interests, regardless of the medium in which the payment is made and regardless of the identity of the immediate recipient or payor. Thus, for example, payment made to an agent, relative, or independent contractor of an official or employee, or even directly into the general treasury of a foreign country of which the beneficiary is an official or employee, may be treated as an indirect payment to the official or employee, if in fact such payment inures or will inure to his benefit or promotes or will promote his financial or other interests. A payment made by an agent or independent contractor of the taxpayer which benefits the taxpayer shall be treated as an indirect payment by the taxpayer to the official or employee.

(3) Official or employee of a government. Any individual officially connected with -

(i) The Government of the United States, a State, a territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

(ii) The government of a foreign country, or

(iii) A political subdivision of, or a corporation or other entity serving as an agency or instrumentality of, any of the above,

in whatever capacity, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, and whether or not serving for compensation, shall be included within the term “official or employee of a government”, regardless of the place of residence or post of duty of such individual. An independent contractor would not ordinarily be considered to be an official or employee. For purposes of section 162(c) and this paragraph, the term “foreign country” shall include any foreign nation, whether or not such nation has been accorded diplomatic recognition by the United States. Individuals who purport to act on behalf of or as the government of a foreign nation, or an agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be treated under this section as officials or employees of a foreign government, whether or not such individuals in fact control such foreign nation, agency, or instrumentality, and whether or not such individuals are accorded diplomatic recognition. Accordingly, a group in rebellion against an established government shall be treated as officials or employees of a foreign government, as shall officials or employees of the government against which the group is in rebellion.
(4) Laws of the United States. The term “laws of the United States”, to which reference is made in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, shall be deemed to include only Federal statutes, including State laws which are assimilated into Federal law by Federal statute, and legislative and interpretative regulations thereunder. The term shall also be limited to statutes which prohibit some act or acts, for the violation of which there is a civil or criminal penalty.

(5) Burden of proof. In any proceeding involving the issue of whether, for purposes of section 162(c)(1), a payment made to a government official or employee constitutes an illegal bribe or kickback (or would be unlawful under the laws of the United States) the burden of proof in respect of such issue shall be upon the Commissioner to the same extent as he bears the burden of proof in civil fraud cases under section 7454 (i.e., he must prove the illegality of the payment by clear and convincing evidence).

(6) Example. The application of this paragraph may be illustrated by the following example:

Example.
X Corp. is in the business of selling hospital equipment in State Y. During 1970, X Corp. employed A who at the time was employed full time by State Y as Superintendent of Hospitals. The purpose of A's employment by X Corp. was to procure for it an improper advantage over other concerns in the making of sales to hospitals in respect of which A, as Superintendent, had authority. X Corp. paid A $5,000 during 1970. The making of this payment was illegal under the laws of State Y. Under section 162(c)(1), X Corp. is precluded from deducting as a trade or business expense the $5,000 paid to A.
...}

You are citing tax law?

Paying Hunter Biden because he's a Biden and you want a Biden on your board of directors is not illegal.

 

[Nostra]

Trumps is not here.

You are the one starting a thread and agreeing with what Trump said.

If you read the thread, pknopp claims because Trump said this during the campaign in 2016 and Eric Trump is taking the 5th now, that proves the investigation going on right now can't be a witch hunt.

He is batshit crazy.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You don't even know what he's guilty of doing.

Again, show me your legal credentials. If what he was doing was legal why did he use the phrase, “plausible deniability”? Doing favors for foreign nations for money isn’t legal if you’re the VP last I checked. If there is nothing there then he has nothing to worry about.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually it depends on the setting. In a criminal case, pleading the 5th can't carry any presumptions. In a civil case, pleading the 5th carries a presumption of guilt,

Civil cases do not even have a concept of "guilt".
With a civil case, it is simply who wins and loses, and which way the court rules.
There is no "guilt".
Guilt implies improper criminal conduct, while a civil case only determines who has to pay up.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You are citing tax law?

Paying Hunter Biden because he's a Biden and you want a Biden on your board of directors is not illegal.

It is if you are doing so to gain advantage that you would not have otherwise. It’s called a bribe or as I call it pay for play…allegedly.

 

[pknopp]

Again, show me your legal credentials. If what he was doing was legal why did he use the phrase, “plausible deniability”? Doing favors for foreign nations for money isn’t legal if you’re the VP last I checked. If there is nothing there then he has nothing to worry about.

We might have had your answers if Trump had been a real president and saw to an investigation on what went on as opposed to calling people names on Twitter all night.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If you read the thread, pknopp claims because Trump said this during the campaign in 2016 and Eric Trump is taking the 5th now, that proves the investigation going on right now can't be a witch hunt.

He is batshit crazy.

He said Sanctuary Cities don’t exist. He is not playing with a full deck. 100%

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

We might have had your answers if Trump had been a real president and saw to an investigation on what went on as opposed to calling people names on Twitter all night.

Trump has many faults. I never Disagreed with that. I still liked what he did overall in his 4 yrs.

 

[Rigby5]

You have it twisted. It's not because the prosecution didn't like the answer, but because they either refused to answer, or perjured themselves claiming they didn't recall.

I doubt anyone has or could be jailed for contempt by claiming they could not remember.
Even Reagan got away with that over sending Oliver North to Iran.

 

[pknopp]

Trump has many faults. I never Disagreed with that. I still liked what he did overall in his 4 yrs.

So your complaint for having no answer lies in his lap.

 

[colfax_m]

Again, show me your legal credentials. If what he was doing was legal why did he use the phrase, “plausible deniability”? Doing favors for foreign nations for money isn’t legal if you’re the VP last I checked. If there is nothing there then he has nothing to worry about.

Plausible deniability doesn't necessarily refer to illegality. It could be about the optics. I agree, the optics are terrible.

Again, you don't even know what the favor is.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually they can. If they can show you had knowledge of it either shortly before, like in an e-mail, or other communication, or shortly after your testimony, your short stint of being unable to recall would be disproven.

No, because many people often have subordinates do their email.
You would need voice and confirmation.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So your complaint for having no answer lies in his lap.

No answer on what?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Plausible deniability doesn't necessarily refer to illegality. It could be about the optics. I agree, the optics are terrible.

Again, you don't even know what the favor is.

So you agree the optics are bad. Excellent. Yeah. I d like to know why he received millions from the Chinese.

 

[pknopp]

So you agree the optics are bad. Excellent. Yeah. I d like to know why he received millions from the Chinese.

So your complaint for having no answer lies in his lap.

No answer on what?

 

[colfax_m]

It is if you are doing so to gain advantage that you would not have otherwise. It’s called a bribe or as I call it pay for play…allegedly.

Bribes are to government officials. Hunter Biden isn't a government official.